Is he Joey? is he Joey? Yes he's Joey. The end.
Completely pointless film. Dull boring pile of nonsense.
I totally agree, Broheem!
I'd never have watched this unbelievably bad film but for it being on cable. Yet another reason to dump HBO/Cinemax package is subscribers end up paying for the old flops from the cinematic equivalent of a garbage landfill!
http://vincentandmorticiasspeakeasy14846.yuku.com/directory
Every theme just went right over your head, huh?
Can't stop the signal.
I love that on every imbd board there's always one self-righteous, self-important little scrotum trying to point out that you must be dunce simply because you express a dislike of a film. I mean, of course if you didn't like it then it MUST mean you're too thick understand this wonderfully artistic masterpiece. This is not the case. I just didn't enjoy it. End of story.
shareTotally agree!
I WILL NEVER GIVE UP!
I mean, of course if you didn't like it then it MUST mean you're too thick understand this wonderfully artistic masterpiece. This is not the case. I just didn't enjoy it. End of story.
It's called humour and it clearly went over YOUR head.
shareMore self-righteous and self-important than someone coming on a board and stating his view as an absolute?
If you had said "In my opinion..." instead of just "Rubbish" and any of the statements that followed you'd have a good argument but no you came on, blew your lid as if it was the universal outlook and then got defensive when people disagreed.
I think we all know who the scrotum is pal!
Well considering your post indicated you were only concentrating on one thing which was not the only theme of the movie, it's easy to do in this case.
Maybe if you had taken the time to type out an insightful, well thought out reasoning as to why you didn't like it, it wouldn't be as easy to attack.
Though since you clearly started a thread and all you had to say is "Is he Joey, yes he's Joey", then I suppose you really didn't have too much more to say.
"I'm sorry that the pretzel fell out.I honestly don't know how long it was in my underpants."
And I just love how every IMDb board has one self-righteous, self-important little scrotum who has to point out that anyone who liked the film must have his head up his ass.
shareThey didn't like the movie. So what? No biggie. Doesn't make them stupid or ignorant or "blind" to the movie's theme. Just means they have a different opinion about it than you do.
As for me, I share your opinion. I absolutely love the film. I've seen it maybe 5 or 6 times now.
Did the awful script, acting, and direction go straight over yours?
shareNo, smokey. No more opinions for you.
shareThe director did breathtaking work so... yeah, that went over yours big time
shareSimply breathtaking. The child acting, the predicable plot points, the acting that was on par or actually worse than anything in a Peter Jackson movie.
The immense genius and quality going over my head is high praise.
Honestly I have very little to share with people who aren't taken aback by Cronenberg movies
I always feel like you guys are missing a few emotional buttons
You have very little to share with people that aren't taken aback by Cronenberg films...
Indeed. Because they are so brillaint, and you are too, presumably.
I just watched it again, I sat down and approached it as I would as a film student, despite all my misgivings, because I was actually curious again.
The editing was generally terrible, but particularly during the action sequences. They were stuttering, and awkwars. Like they took one take of each and just did their best. Much of this might have been the lack of consistent and considered shots to edit from.
However, I laughed out loud at the scene were he killed his brother. That was brilliant.
Markers were so obvious it felt completely staged at points.
Interesting plot. While the scenes were often predictable, it was interesting over all.
Nice photography for a lot of the daylight scenes, in the cafe, but usually fairly stagey, and inconsistent lighting from shot to shot. I actually laughed at the shot of the nuclear family on the bed near the start for its absolute cheese, when combined with the awful child this was enough for me to not continue watching previous times.
Erratic and basically poor crane shots that were unnecessary, and edited together haphazardly throughout.
Mortensen's acting was great. The son's passable, Bello's sub par (half the time she cried it was unclear is she was supposed to be faking it obviously, or actually crying), the daughter's awful, but her strange Twilight Zone child kind of worked in the end amidst all the strangeness by the end. Presumably Cronenberg worked out she should just not saying anything - a moment of 'genius'.
Makeup on Ed harris was great.
I wasn't taken aback by it, so there's no need for you to respond. I also have no expectations of anything interesting being said by anyone that is taken aback by any of Cronenberg's films, and makes such a dense statement.
Although they are unique films, those I have seen along the way since I was a teen and saw the Fly and Videodrome, they are hardly brilliant films, but his viscera is unrepentant, which is commendable I suppose.
The relationships were unique, and it was an interesting film in many ways, but some sort of masterpiece? No, not so much. A decent film once you overlook some of the weaknesses in the early scenes, and Cronenberg being unable to film action worth a damn.
interesting review
i didn't like it myself either, but it wasn't a complete waste of time because his wife was pretty hot and the stair sex scene was interesting
so many movies, so little time
Not as rubish as y'all haters' life. This movie is a masterpiece. Stick to complicated mess 2:40 hours long Transformer movies
If I don't reply, you're most likely on my ignore list
Masterpiece? I don't see how a movie with this much bad acting and dialogue can be considered a masterpiece. Your bar must be pretty low.
shareBad acting? From whom?
If I don't reply, you're most likely on my ignore list
Just about everybody. Although most of that blame can be put on the director. There were some good performances, but overall this movie has a lot of sub-par acting.
shareBull *beep* Everyone were amazing in this movie except for the little girl but what can you expect from a kid. It's one of the reasons this movie was praised by critics and received a standing ovation at Cannes.
If I don't reply, you're most likely on my ignore list
Ed Harris and Maria Bello were fine, but I thought Viggo did a poor job up until "Joey" came out. The son and the bully were very unbelievable. Thinking more about it, I think the dialogue was the biggest reason why I thought this movie was mediocre at best. It had a lot of potential, but the execution was lacking.
shareI always saw it as joey himself being a bad actor therefore the bad acting when he was the other guy. Which if true kinda makes viggo mortensens performance pretty impressive.
Slave: Pharao Bender it hurts when i breath!
Bender: Then what do you think you should stop doing?
They just wanted to justify their faith in Cronenberg after Spider.
shareA masterpiece of badness.
shareellybendi came to troll, and PreachCaleb fed him. Case closed.
As far as the movie, or enjoying it, just like any other movie it all depends on what you bring to it. AHOV plays like a late 40's early 50's film noir with Bogart, or Dick Powell, or Alan Ladd (without the porn scene of course), with a modern (for 2005) setting. Though, you could almost see the script being cleaned up of the "noir" aspect, and been a straight crime drama movie with Gregory Peck. The movie was nothing special, worth seeing once, but I've not had a hot desire to see it again. It would have been a lesser installment of the film noir genre circa 1948.
To minimize this film as in the film noir genre is not completely wrong. It has its noir elements. But it has also been said to represent a kind of western set in a small, contemporary town. And for myself there is in any event nothing wrong with the film noir genre.
My concern instead is I am not sure what the point is of saying it has noir elements and then saying it was nothing special. Nothing special because...?
I am a big fan of the film, who at the same time over the years believe it is misunderstood by too many. Too many I think find the title somewhat confounding, perhaps misleading. The few violent scenes in fact are very well done, and realistic. How we see the marriage change in light of the developments is also both very plausible and revealing. At the core is the theme of who are we, who we were before, or now, and how much does our past inform the answer to that question? In the case of Tom/Joey there of course is a much more radical shift involved in answering that question, but it remains a subject that, well, should be of interest to all.
Related to the existential question is a theme of redemption, and also a theme of our conflicting attitudes about violence. These are all I think pursued in compelling fashion. The cast is also excellent. The editing and pacing is perfect, not a wasted frame, but all there needed to tell the story and make the point.
Someone giving a negative opinion is not trolling. I rate every film I ever watch on IMDB and I watch a lot of films. I normally just read these boards, rarely commenting, but on this occasion I did voice my opinion because this was seriously one of the worst films I had seen in a long time. I watch and appreciate most films for what they are, even the crap ones, but I could find absolutely no redeeming features whatsoever with this one, which is extremely rare.
I'm astonished at some of the extreme reactions my post has gotten - being called unintelligent, troll, etc., just because I didn't like a film. Clearly some of you people have no lives or jobs and have lost all perception of reality. It's very sad. You have my sympathy.
Well come on it's not because you didn't like the film...
You literally didn't say anything about why you didn't like in your first post
You joked on the plot, and the plot isn't really why this movie is amazing
It's a stunning picture
If you didn't like it that's fine but really... care to actually share what you didn't like?
Thought it was okay, but not the masterpiece it was touted to be. Essentially a one-dimensional story. Preferred Eastern Promises.
shareThis is a cracking film. Just watched it again. Even if you didn't get the deeper themes there is a dread running throughout which makes it at times disturbing. A great grown up film especially the changing relationship between the two leads and the similarities between the two societys Tom moves from and to and both gangliand/law abiding societies view of Toms use of or history of violence.
shareI agree. This movie is rubbish. And considering the talent involved that is a serious underachievement.
I'm not going to write a thesis, nor should fanboys expect anyone to do so, but here's one example:
When Stall runs (hops!) home from the diner (because walking to work hours before you open, and with a stabbed foot, completely makes sense right?) and discovers everything is ok, the shotgun is put on the table. Then there is a zoom shot to the gun. Now ordinarily this would either be some form of foreshadowing, or, alternatively, misdirection. But then nothing whatever happens in that or the following scenes involving the gun. Its just an idiotic cinematic choice.
This movie is filled with this sort of stuff. As for the story itself? Infantile.
What sort of works is Hurt's high camp cameo. I guess he realised how silly this whole thing was and just went to town with the role he was given. Which you can get away with when the rest of the movie is toss and you already have an Oscar on your bookshelf. Problem is, the rest of the movie isn't a comedy.
Maybe that zoom shot of the shotgun foreshadowed the son using it to shoot the mobster.
share